Trumpality
A new take on reality - or is it reality tv?

I have had a long history of strongly resisting being placed in any basket, even a good basket, whatever that might be. I have come to realize I am a bit extreme in this, and that my reactions sometimes work to my detriment, but I think the general inclination of rejecting such placement is widely shared.

Placing people in baskets is not a trait I admire, and when it is applied to me personally I react very badly.

What a basket case.

This post sponsored by: All County Building Supply & Maintenance, Felo, NY.Without truth it is impossible to speak truth to power, so there is only power.

I presume you aren't retweeting tweets from white supremacist accounts?

I still have not learned to tweet. [Yes, I understand that is not your point.] Let's get the quote. I found this on WaPo

Quote

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables'. Right?" Clinton said, per The Washington Post's Abby Phillip. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it."

So HC herself regards this as grossly generalistic. It's a grab bag, with "you name it" tacked onto the end in case she left anything out as surely she did. And she leaves herself an out. If any individual Trump supporter were to challenge this characterization of him/her she can just say "Of course I didn't mean you, you are not in that half".

This is like the preacher railing against the sinners on Sunday. There is no actual content, the faithful can feel they have received a blessing, and then everyone moves on.

A cheap thrill, in short. Basically I don't care about it one way or the other, but I think it was a dumb comment.

It was not just a dumb comment. It was the kind of comment that a person makes when they are losing the intellectual argument. When you can't win on the ideas you accuse the other person of just being a racist or a homophobe or whatever. The irony is that most of the time when you throw that accusation out as a summarization it is usually inaccurate. The reason it is usually an accurate is that you could make the point with an actual argument if it was true. The fact that you are not making your point with an actual argument but have to resort to name-calling means that you do not have a convincing argument that is correct.

"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

It was not just a dumb comment. It was the kind of comment that a person makes when they are losing the intellectual argument. When you can't win on the ideas you accuse the other person of just being a racist or a homophobe or whatever. The irony is that most of the time when you throw that accusation out as a summarization it is usually inaccurate. The reason it is usually an accurate is that you could make the point with an actual argument if it was true. The fact that you are not making your point with an actual argument but have to resort to name-calling means that you do not have a convincing argument that is correct.

Trump launched his political career by giving prominence to an obviously racially charged conspiracy theory about the first black US president. He launched his primary campaign with an idea utterly ridiculous (build a wall to protect the US from Mexico from illegal immigrants, at a time when the net immigration from Mexico is negative, and when most of the illegal immigrants enter the US legally) - so utterly ridiculous that anyone who likes it must have a highly distorted world view.
White supremacist groups are genuinely excited about the Trump candidacy, and for good reason. Obviously Trump knew what he was doing when he initially refused to disavow support from David Duke, and then later only did so grudgingly.
Trump has frequently retweeted posts from supremacist twitter accounts (some obviously so), including an obviously anti-semitic one about Hillary. His son (and one of the closest campaign advisors) has retweeted the white supremacist's most popular meme, compared immigrants to poisoned skittles, and thinks that immigration in Europe will lead to a rape epidemic.
Jewish journalists have always been getting their unfair share of anti-semitic email and comments and twitter replies, but very many of them mention that they see A LOT MORE since the Trump campaign became prominent, and many have also said that they have started to encounter anti-semitism in real life (which before Trump they only knew from trips outside the US).
Obviously, Trump himself is highly misogynistic - and not just normal rich-70-year-old-guy-misogynistic, much worse than that.

It's also clear that many of his supporters like Trump not despite all of the above, but because of the above.

It is clear that Trump has emboldened racists, anti-semites, misogynists, etc., and that they enthusiastically support him. It is genuinely worrisome. I don't know what percentage of Trump supporters they make up, but I don't think it is a negligeable number.

That you are unable to see or acknowledge this despite your intellect raises serious questions about your judgement and character.

The egos of bridge players seem to be larger than that of the general population. Which is actually pretty strange, when one considers how humbling a game it is... Michael Rosenberg

Ok, let me give it a try myself. I won't try to tackle everything because it would take too long. So, I will focus on one part.

Immigration and extremists.

Within the world of ideas there are people who have all sorts of ideas. There is an assumption that is made good ideas can be put on a linear chart. You imagine that ideas run from the left to the right. Ideas are not on such a line however. An artificial line to group ideas forces ideas to be fit into that linear line which is unfair. Is a tool used to ensure that ideas with which you disagree end up being placed on the line at a point where is close to something insane.

The same type of logic is used against liberal thinking. If you allow women choice in childbirth that could be arguably seen as a means of population control. In fact there is some historical precedent for that. It can also be seen as a racist form of population control and there is historical precedent for that as well. But that is idiotic. Ideas are not linear like that.

Using the logic that you have used one could argue that anyone who supports freedom of choice for women in childbirth is sympathetic with racist supremacist because racist supremacist were in favor of abortion. In fact you could probably find someone who says that abortion is a good thing because it keeps the population of black people down. That would be completely unfair.

That sort of thinking is what leads to idiotic choices. If you have an issue that needs resolution certain ideas are rejected because they seem to be on the spectrum that leads toward white supremacy or radical communism. But because there is no Spectrum in because the spectrum is defined by people who have an agenda the assumption is false.

The linear thinking causes people to both unfairly and unjustly attack the other side but also to govern their own decision making no way that is irrational.

I'm not in any way advocating in this particular diatribe any conclusion. Rather my point is to chastise the argument technique. The original discussion was on the deplorable comment. That was an example of linear thinking that was improper.

"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

Obviously, you fail to even engage with my argument. My argument isn't that some voters are for Trump, and so are White Supremacists; therefore these voters are White Supremacists.
My argument is that Trump's campaign is to a large extent built on appealing to racism and xenophobism. And that there are many signs that many of his voters like him for that very reason.

Maybe I was wrong about you, assuming that you have enough intellect to see this. Your reply above certainly suggests so.

The egos of bridge players seem to be larger than that of the general population. Which is actually pretty strange, when one considers how humbling a game it is... Michael Rosenberg

It was not just a dumb comment. It was the kind of comment that a person makes when they are losing the intellectual argument. When you can't win on the ideas you accuse the other person of just being a racist or a homophobe or whatever. The irony is that most of the time when you throw that accusation out as a summarization it is usually inaccurate. The reason it is usually an accurate is that you could make the point with an actual argument if it was true. The fact that you are not making your point with an actual argument but have to resort to name-calling means that you do not have a convincing argument that is correct.

Ken,

Your mistake is that you assume that the purpose of such a label is to win an intellectual argument.

Rather, this label is a signal stating approximately the following:

1. The intellectual argument is over
2. I am labelling this person a "Deplorable"
3. If you trust my judgement, you will agree. Conversely, if this person is able to demonstrate that they are not a deplorable, then you should not longer trust my judgement.

You claim that this is a sign that the labeler is "losing" the intellectual argument.

Ok, let me give it a try myself. I won't try to tackle everything because it would take too long. So, I will focus on one part.

Immigration and extremists.

Within the world of ideas there are people who have all sorts of ideas. There is an assumption that is made good ideas can be put on a linear chart. You imagine that ideas run from the left to the right. Ideas are not on such a line however. An artificial line to group ideas forces ideas to be fit into that linear line which is unfair. Is a tool used to ensure that ideas with which you disagree end up being placed on the line at a point where is close to something insane.

The same type of logic is used against liberal thinking. If you allow women choice in childbirth that could be arguably seen as a means of population control. In fact there is some historical precedent for that. It can also be seen as a racist form of population control and there is historical precedent for that as well. But that is idiotic. Ideas are not linear like that.

Using the logic that you have used one could argue that anyone who supports freedom of choice for women in childbirth is sympathetic with racist supremacist because racist supremacist were in favor of abortion. In fact you could probably find someone who says that abortion is a good thing because it keeps the population of black people down. That would be completely unfair.

That sort of thinking is what leads to idiotic choices. If you have an issue that needs resolution certain ideas are rejected because they seem to be on the spectrum that leads toward white supremacy or radical communism. But because there is no Spectrum in because the spectrum is defined by people who have an agenda the assumption is false.

The linear thinking causes people to both unfairly and unjustly attack the other side but also to govern their own decision making no way that is irrational.

I'm not in any way advocating in this particular diatribe any conclusion. Rather my point is to chastise the argument technique. The original discussion was on the deplorable comment. That was an example of linear thinking that was improper.

Literally not a single sentence has anything to do with my posts that it purportedly is replying to. Amazing.

The egos of bridge players seem to be larger than that of the general population. Which is actually pretty strange, when one considers how humbling a game it is... Michael Rosenberg

At the core of the issue is that the action is not racist but rather reaction to racism. The United States is and always has been a melting pot. Flawed and slow to melt, but a melting pot nonetheless. The current crisis, however, is unique. The world is dealing with extreme racist ideology bent on destruction of inclusive society. It is Islamic extremism that is the racist threat, not us. Our reaction is not our way, but it is no longer our choice.

I mean, consider NAZI Germany. If Hitler had announced a plan to onvade the United States via German immigrants charged with the task of killing American Jews, Slavs, Handicapped, and the like, with emcouragement to blow up buildings, banning German immigration would not be antiGerman. It would be necessary defense of self.

What about less obvious risk like Latin American immigration? We have laws. We have borders. When people cross illegally, taking jobs under the table, wages go down, as does labor participation. Enforcement is necessary to protect.

Many of us see these two things as extremely important. We also see recent government refusing to act as seems prudent because the best option for each problem is inconsistent with our ideology as a people. I amd many agree that this is inconsistent, on the surface. However, the inconsistency is false, induced by insanely violent racism in the first instance and abuse of hospitality in the second. You might love your child. But, if your child is about to murder people, you might and should kill the child.

In college, I was an atheist at a Christian college. They had a seminar on situational ethics and how bad that was. I called out BS. You never kill is bs. Killing by shooting the innocent is bad. Killing the innocent passively by not shooting the killer is just as bad. Opting out of the problem is as simful.

Well, the situation has changed.

Tie the two together. We as a society can only absorb so many people. Because so many people south of our border enter illegally, our system is swamped dealing with them. This takes away resources that could have been used to properly vet Surian refugees, who have a much greater need. Opting to ignore the illegal immigrant to be nice and consistent is allowing Syrians to be delayed or rejected. The solution of allowing any and all with no control and no vetting ends up with the hot mess we are in getting worse.

Suppose David Duke might say tge same thing. Ok. He is an ass. So what? A racist ass can be right at times as to some issues. That does not make the right answer wrong.

If a cop thinks that all black teens are thugs, shame on him. If that same racist cop thinks a group of four black teen thugs are thugs, he is right. That time. If a racially sensitive cop agrees with him on that last assessment, the racially sensitive cop is not now a racist.

"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

At the core of the issue is that the action is not racist but rather reaction to racism. The United States is and always has been a melting pot. Flawed and slow to melt, but a melting pot nonetheless. The current crisis, however, is unique. The world is dealing with extreme racist ideology bent on destruction of inclusive society. It is Islamic extremism that is the racist threat, not us. Our reaction is not our way, but it is no longer our choice.

I mean, consider NAZI Germany. If Hitler had announced a plan to onvade the United States via German immigrants charged with the task of killing American Jews, Slavs, Handicapped, and the like, with emcouragement to blow up buildings, banning German immigration would not be antiGerman. It would be necessary defense of self.

What about less obvious risk like Latin American immigration? We have laws. We have borders. When people cross illegally, taking jobs under the table, wages go down, as does labor participation. Enforcement is necessary to protect.

Many of us see these two things as extremely important. We also see recent government refusing to act as seems prudent because the best option for each problem is inconsistent with our ideology as a people. I amd many agree that this is inconsistent, on the surface. However, the inconsistency is false, induced by insanely violent racism in the first instance and abuse of hospitality in the second. You might love your child. But, if your child is about to murder people, you might and should kill the child.

In college, I was an atheist at a Christian college. They had a seminar on situational ethics and how bad that was. I called out BS. You never kill is bs. Killing by shooting the innocent is bad. Killing the innocent passively by not shooting the killer is just as bad. Opting out of the problem is as simful.

Well, the situation has changed.

Tie the two together. We as a society can only absorb so many people. Because so many people south of our border enter illegally, our system is swamped dealing with them. This takes away resources that could have been used to properly vet Surian refugees, who have a much greater need. Opting to ignore the illegal immigrant to be nice and consistent is allowing Syrians to be delayed or rejected. The solution of allowing any and all with no control and no vetting ends up with the hot mess we are in getting worse.

Suppose David Duke might say tge same thing. Ok. He is an ass. So what? A racist ass can be right at times as to some issues. That does not make the right answer wrong.

If a cop thinks that all black teens are thugs, shame on him. If that same racist cop thinks a group of four black teen thugs are thugs, he is right. That time. If a racially sensitive cop agrees with him on that last assessment, the racially sensitive cop is not now a racist.

Sounds like there should be plenty of jobs available making mountains from molehills.

This post sponsored by: All County Building Supply & Maintenance, Felo, NY.Without truth it is impossible to speak truth to power, so there is only power.

...
I mean, consider NAZI Germany. If Hitler had announced a plan to onvade the United States via German immigrants charged with the task of killing American Jews, Slavs, Handicapped, and the like, with emcouragement to blow up buildings, banning German immigration would not be antiGerman. It would be necessary defense of self.
...

I could barely get through this post without crying. Do you even hear yourself?

During the Holocaust, there was huge sentiment against letting in Jewish refugees from Germany. It sounds like you're agreeing with that and applying the same logic to refugees from ISIS. It's so sad and troubling to see such a history (people openly and unabashedly stating racist ideas) repeating itself in my lifetime.

I could barely get through this post without crying. Do you even hear yourself?

During the Holocaust, there was huge sentiment against letting in Jewish refugees from Germany. It sounds like you're agreeing with that and applying the same logic to refugees from ISIS. It's so sad and troubling to see such a history (people openly and unabashedly stating racist ideas) repeating itself in my lifetime.

This is wildly different. NAZI Germany was not embedding NAZIs into the Jewish population to get them to the US to kill US jews and to keep the war going. The Jews did not have a substantial percentage who were displaced from Germany because their strain of world domination and bigotry failed to win the day in Europe.

"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

What about less obvious risk like Latin American immigration? We have laws. We have borders. When people cross illegally, taking jobs under the table, wages go down, as does labor participation. Enforcement is necessary to protect.

Many of us see these two things as extremely important. We also see recent government refusing to act as seems prudent because the best option for each problem is inconsistent with our ideology as a people. I amd many agree that this is inconsistent, on the surface. However, the inconsistency is false, induced by insanely violent racism in the first instance and abuse of hospitality in the second. You might love your child. But, if your child is about to murder people, you might and should kill the child.

...

Well, the situation has changed.

Tie the two together. We as a society can only absorb so many people. Because so many people south of our border enter illegally, our system is swamped dealing with them. This takes away resources that could have been used to properly vet Surian refugees, who have a much greater need. Opting to ignore the illegal immigrant to be nice and consistent is allowing Syrians to be delayed or rejected. The solution of allowing any and all with no control and no vetting ends up with the hot mess we are in getting worse.

This argument would be more convincing if it weren't for the fact that Latin American immigration went into sharp decline before the Syrian refugee crisis started...

This is wildly different. NAZI Germany was not embedding NAZIs into the Jewish population to get them to the US to kill US jews and to keep the war going. The Jews did not have a substantial percentage who were displaced from Germany because their strain of world domination and bigotry failed to win the day in Europe.

Muslim refugees to the United States are vetted extremely stringently in a process lasting well over a year before they are allowed to enter the US.

I am not aware of any cases of terrorist acts in the United States involving Syrian or Iraqi refugees.
(There have been cases in Europe, however, this is a radically different border control model and much larger immigrant populations)

And, oh yes, those refugees by and large are not fleeing their country because their "strain for world domination and bigotry failed to win the day in Syria". Rather, they are fleeing a war zone because their government is starving cities into submission and using chemical weapons to slaughter civilian populations...

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Dictators in the Middle East use chemical weapons on their citizens for no reason other than that they are sick demagogues. People were slaughtered for no reason other than that they happen to be people whom the dictator hates. The dictator hates them for no particular reason.

How is it then that we have only been able to find a handful of so-called moderate? I'm not seeking to justify the tactic. However it seems to me that the civil war in Syria has been between Assad and primarily Isis or groups like Isis. I don't seem to recall any Middle Eastern Revolution bringing about leadership that was honorable and good. It seems like historically most of the people who have been suppressed by dictators but who end up rising up after the dictator Falls are worse than the dictators. Why is this so?

I believe it is because of a flawed religion. That does not make me a racist because I do not believe that race dictates religion. It may very well make me biased against Islam. I'll accept that. There are other ideologies I also am biased against. Being against White supremacists does not mean that I am racist against white people. Being against Nation of Islam types does not mean that I am anti black.

Yeah I understand that people might find it offensive to be against an entire religion. I don't believe that it is Honorable and just to be supportive of all religions. I believe it is Honorable and just be tolerant of those who practice all religions. I believe it is Honorable and just to allow people to practice religion as they choose. But that does not mean that one should feel compelled to support the conclusions of all people simply because their conclusions are based upon their religion. Nor would I for instance support Westboro Baptist Church people simply because their beliefs are based upon their religious views.

"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

And in anticipation of a possible rebuttal. Christianity was just as offensive at many points. We are alive at the time that Martin Luther Bank the 95 Theses on the Wittenburg door I also would have been as violently against the Catholic Church. That Menace was essentially eradicated with the most bloody period In European history. Europe innocence killed that version of Christianity to the blood of many people.

"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

There are no racists in the US of A. There are just some folks who carefully and deliberately analyse the US economy, and through a number of logical mistakes come to the incorrect conclusion that its problems are due to immigration from Mexico. We'd just need to show them the mistake in their math, and their attitudes towards Mexicans would change right away.

The egos of bridge players seem to be larger than that of the general population. Which is actually pretty strange, when one considers how humbling a game it is... Michael Rosenberg